Evaluation of Mixed Reality Technologies for Remote Feedback and Guidance During Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsy Simulation: A Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Study

• Published in: Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) Vol. 183; pp. 25 - 31
• Main Authors: Nithipalan, Vivek, Holler, Tyler, Schuler, Nathan, Shepard, Lauren, Ghazi, Ahmed
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.01.2024
• ISSN: 0090-4295; 1527-9995
• DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2023.10.029

To compare equivalency of remote to in-person training during simulated transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, we combined three technologies (mixed reality [MR] software, smart glasses, and hydrogel simulation model). Taken together, telemonitoring harnesses data streaming to provide real-time supervision and technical assistance for surgical procedures from an expert at a remote geographical location. Nineteen students were randomized into two groups (MR-first and in-person-first) and proctored to measure prostate volume and perform 14-biopsies over seven sessions: pretest, two MR/in-person-guided training sessions, mid-test, crossover into two in-person/MR-guided training sessions, and post-test. MR sessions utilized Vuzix smart glasses with MR software (HelpLightning) to share the student’s first-person perspective and Zoom to project the ultrasound screen to a remote instructor. Training and test sessions utilized single-color and seven-color prostate models, respectively. Accuracy of biopsy cores from test sessions were compared. Perception of instruction following each training session using 5-point Likert scales across five domains was assessed. Preference of instruction modality was assessed qualitatively. Comparison of mid-test performance following two training sessions was similar across the two groups (MR-first 63.8% vs in-person-first 57.6%, P = .340). Following crossover, difference in post-test performance of the MR-first group and the in-person-first group approached significance (MR-first 80.2% vs in-person-first 70.8%, P = .050). Student evaluation of MR and in-person instruction following training sessions was similar across the five metrics. MR-based remote learning is equally effective when compared to traditional in-person instruction.